so now you want ledley in the middle rather than gerrard and lampard? make up your fu*king mind man. i don't even know what the argument is anymore! how old are you? because if im arguing with a ten year old which i think i am then im gonna quit now
i don't know where your getting your stats from. ledley was a defender before fu*king jol was there believe me! it has always been his first position! yes he can play midfield but carrick is miles better! if you cant see that then your a fu*king idiot!
no im saying centreback has always been his number 1 position for spurs. he's played midfield before buts its not his preferred position and didn't play it for 2 seasons for fu*ks sake........... your going off the rails a bit here aren't you. could this be because you know im right little boy
carrick is not a tackler or will harass and close players down. hes simply good in posession so why would you play carrick in midfield when gerrard or lampard can do the same job and then put your best centre mid player gerrard onto left midfield when you have j cole!!!!! englands best line up beckham--gerrard--lampard---j cole
King wasn't one of the best players against Poland. The team as a whole performed better (especially Lampard) with the addition of a holding midfielder, despite the fact that King isn't particularly good at it. This is precisely the point we're trying to make; improving the balance in midfield can still improve the team even if more talented players are taken out in the process. This is why your Carrick/Parker aren't as good as Gerrard/Lampard/Cole arguments are flawed. For the record, Ledley King played in midfield for one season at Spurs, due to the shortage of midfield players they had at the time. They were never seriously considering having him in midfield permanently. At the time, I didn't think he was any good there. Ironically enough, when King was playing in midfield for Spurs, Sven played him in defence for England. Now he's back as a defender, Sven picks him as a midfielder...
yes he was, king was the main reason lampard played one of his better games and thats why erikson kept him in the side against argentina
its not flawed because carrick and parker are simler players to lampard and gerrard, it makes no sence to remove these players for inferior versions
Lampard played one of his better games because he could play exactly like he does for Chelsea - with a holding player allowing him to get forward and not worry too much about defending (and no Beckham monopolising the playmaking). Having Makelele there is obviously best, but you only need a vaguely competent holding player to aid him to a significant degree. King played ok, that's all. It was mainly the change in system that helped the team in general and Lampard specifically. That game doesn't really give us good reasons to believe that King is the best option in that role. No, it's just one reason why I'm not convinced King is the best choice for a holding midfielder. Carrick and Lampard both distribute the ball, but getting forward is a massive part of Lampard's game, whereas Carrick just tends to sit in front of the back four. And though Carrick is perhaps more deep-lying playmaker than holding player, his defensive abilities are superior to Lampard's. And unlike Gerrard and Lampard, he has the discipline to stay in a defensive position. About three years ago Parker and Gerrard were similar players, but since then they've developed in opposite directions. Gerrard has become primarily an attacking player, and Parker a primarily defensive one. Gerrard is all about surging runs from midfield and killer passes, whereas Parker is a ball-winner who doesn't get forward much.
and look what happened in that game this is the point im trying to get through your thick skull. carrick is SUITED to this position! king is NOT!
Fvck off Cobra, this viewpoint has been blugeoned to death on this forum long enough. You're trying to give CPR to a decaying corpse. Give up.
which is correct. carrick cant tackle or an athlete that will close players down for 90 minutes, hes simply good in possession. somthing either gerrard or lampard can do but more! the only good reason why carrick would play is because he would stay back for the entire 90 minutes, you cant deny they have simler qualitys. carrick has no experience playing at the highest level
maybe people like you should actualy come up with a reason why carrick should play instead of gerrard or lampard rather then being evasive in every post
when joe cole came on in the 2nd half for king and played gerrard--beckham--lampard--j cole england looked much better and played well creating chances. and dont say carrick would do any better then king cos hes never played against a s amercian player in his life! infact he has no experience whatsoever !!
guys, try not to respond to cobra anymore cos this is ridiculous, he is stringing you lot around and taking the piss and you guys are falling for it and trying your hardest to explain to the idiot how/why carrick can or should play in the holding role. don't fall for it. end it now. please.
thats a good question why should carrick play the holding role and displace gerrard, no one can answer !! does carrick close players down and put tackles in like makkele or viera NO!!!!! does carrick have expercience playing against continental style of football NO!!!!! does carrick have the techincal abilty of gerrard, lampard, jole cole NO!!!!!!